Pentium Dual-Core 1.6Ghz or Celeron D 3.06Ghz

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
I have two CPUs to choose from.

- Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140 (SLA93) 1.60Ghz
- Intel Celeron D 3.06Ghz

The E2140 (Conroe) has 1mb cache and 800Mhz FSB, at 65nm, so it runs cooler. The Celeron only has 256kb cache and 533Mhz FSB, at 90nm, so its hotter... but its also much faster.

1 of these will eventually go into a machine running 64bit Ubuntu, and the other will be running 32bit Windows. The Windows box needs to play games really well, and the Linux box will be running multiple apps like apache, snort, squid, etc. My instincts tell me to go with the Pentium for Ubuntu, but I wanted to get your thoughts on the pros and cons of each.
 

Flipped Gazelle

Diamond Member
Sep 5, 2004
6,666
3
81
That Celeron D is so weak by today's standards - Netburst and cache-starved - that the E2140 has to be more powerful by far. Look at it this way - the E2140 is fairly similar, clock-for-clock, as an Athlon 64. In AMD parlance, a 1.6 Ghz single core would be something like an 2800+, and the Celeron D is less powerful than a Pentium 4 3 Ghz. So, it seems to me that a single core version of your E2140 would be a match for the Celeron.

Sell the Celeron and get another dual-core?
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
I saw a benchmark not long ago where a 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo beat a 3.6 GHz Pentium D (a faster, dual-core version of your Celeron D with more cache). A 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo with slightly less cache (which is all that a Pentium Dual Core is) should be able to whoop any Celeron D.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,483
14,434
136
In F@H, my C2D's were twice as fast as my Pentium D's, so I got rid of them. That 2140 will OC to 3 ghz most likely, and kill that Celeron, even if you OC it as well.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Core for Core, the C2D w/2MB L2 was a shade over twice as fast as a Pentium 4/D.

The Pentium 4's higher cache and lower latency compared to Celeron D means that the gap would only be larger in this case.

One of the Pentium DC cores (a C2D core with less cache) would be notably quicker. The fact that it's dual core, well ..

It *should* be about 3X faster in processor-intensive situations, and the supporting technology (chipset, sata controller, memory, etc) should be quicker as well.
 

magreen

Golden Member
Dec 27, 2006
1,309
1
81
Originally posted by: SagaLore
I have two CPUs to choose from.

- Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140 (SLA93) 1.60Ghz
- Intel Celeron D 3.06Ghz

The E2140 (Conroe) has 1mb cache and 800Mhz FSB, at 65nm, so it runs cooler. The Celeron only has 256kb cache and 533Mhz FSB, at 90nm, so its hotter... but its also much faster.

...

sounds like you're making the classic mistake of thinking that a higher clockspeed means a faster cpu. It's not true in many cases, and it's not true in this case. Just like my 6.0GHz cordless phone isn't better at computing than my cpu.
 

faxon

Platinum Member
May 23, 2008
2,109
1
81
dont forget that those early 1mb cache conroes could do as much as 100% overclocks as well. you could probably take that thing up to 3.2GHz stable np
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
quick

.. which is faster, a 2.80 celeron D or a P4 2.4b ?

i took the P4
[i had a choice]
:p

. . . it has a much nicer case [Lian Li]
[it is my back-up office machine; fast enough for Office2007]

 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
The E2140 is up to either of your desired tasks "gaming" or "multi-tasking", but that cely-d won't be good for either, make a keychain out of that one
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,303
4
81
E2140, & it'll OC well if you have a half decent board & cooling...